Theory and Software, Mind the Gap

questions
#1

Awhile ago, in conversation, someone said to me that Chris had told them that while the theory is complete, the software represents a ‘most used’ path and doesn’t accommodate everything the theory can do.

The example he gave was that you can have many impact characters, especially in a story told over much time.

So I was wondering: is there a list of this sort of thing somewhere, the common stuff we often need to do as writers that the software can’t help with (yet–I have faith!) If not, would it be a good idea to assemble a list here, as a guide for people? Just a thought.

The software is awfully good, by the way. No complaints from this department. I love character construction stuff, and the throughline profression stuff, and the instant dramatica stuff…there’s a lot to love in the app.

#2

A few things come to mind:

  • The opposing throughlines (OS and RS, MC and IC) could be vertically or horizontally aligned instead of only diagonally aligned. Throughlines are diagonally aligned due to western preferences, and because it creates more conflict and more similarities between the throughlines (“You and I are alike”). Though I think it’s safer to use them as the software proposes it.
  • Relationship Dynamics , like the RS Outcome, Judgment, if it’s a dissolving/growing relationship, an established or a new relationship… I think these are great points to keep in mind.
#3

The dynamic pair bias is a bias of the Theory and not the software, I believe. The Western Bias had to do with which throughline shares the goal and the signpost order limitations imposed by the software.

The Software is limited on resolution for both fractalizing outlines and also on the character assignments. For example, each element or throughline can be handed off or shared by different players between Story Drivers.

So, there is…

A software limit for character/POV assignments
An objectivity bias for resolution in scope on fractal magnifications
A cultural bias on signpost order and goals
And, a Master/slave bias for dynamic pairs for the theory.

I’m sure this is a quad :wink:

Only half of this could be remedied with a software refresh. There are other threads that discuss getting the blurry magnified data. So, if you include that, you could get 75% of this done with a little more theory, software development, and some disclaimers. But, that dynamic pair bias is a theoretical limit on completeness.

We’ll see if I get corrected. But, I’m pretty sure this is the case.

1 Like